Globalisation: Sovereignty or Anarchy Beyond Modernity?

22 Pages·2002·0.06 MB·English

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2002/10
Globalisation:
Sovereignty or Anarchy Beyond Modernity?
CHIARA BOTTICI
BADIA FIESOLANA, SAN DOMENICO (FI)
All rights reserved.
No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form
without permission of the author.
[email protected]
© 2002 Chiara Bottici
Printed in Italy in November 2002
European University Institute
Badia Fiesolana
I – 50016 San Domenico (FI)
Italy
GLOBALISATION:
SOVEREIGNTY OR ANARCHY BEYOND MODERNITY? *
by Chiara Bottici
According to a common view, globalisation implies a loss of control over our
lives. By depleting the decision-making capacity of individuals and governments,
it questions one of the basic conditions for the exercise of politics. Whereas some
celebrate this new condition as the triumph of the global market over politics,
others point to the danger that it implies for the achievements of modernity. Both
sides, however, conceive of globalisation as a kind of natural phenomenon taking
place above our heads and with no possibility of arrest. Consequently, it is often
presented as a condition of disorder. Zygmut Bauman, for instance, argues that
since social order means being able to keep things under control - as has been the
case during the modern era, globalisation is simply another name for the new
world disorder, for the fact that our destiny is slipping out of our hands.1
The diffusion of this perception of impotence is the starting point of this paper.
However, I will suggest that this condition is not the result of the decline of politics
as such, but that it is – rather - a sign of the crisis of its modern version. Modern
thinkers have conceived of politics as the privileged place for the ambivalent
pursuit of rational mastering and individual autonomy that has been described as
the distinctive feature of modernity, and they have identified the sovereign state as
the main agency in charge of its implementation: once this latter was brought to a
crisis point, the impression was that politics was declining altogether.
As a privileged point of view to show how globalisation has questioned the
modern conception of politics, I will focus on the sovereignty versus anarchy
dichotomy. By this expression I mean the tendency of modernity to conceive of
politics in terms of a dichotomous view which separates its internal domain,
subject to sovereignty, from the external one, dominated by mere anarchy. I will
start by analysing the dichotomy “sovereignty versus anarchy”, illustrating the
crucial role that it has played within modern political theory (§.1). I will then move
on to globalisation and to the issue of its relationship with political modernity,
arguing that the former has crucially questioned the latter (§.2). Subsequently, I
will try to demonstrate that globalisation, together with political modernity, has
also undermined the conceptual apparatus through which this latter conceived of
itself, and particularly the sovereignty versus anarchy dichotomy. Following the

* I am grateful to Carol Gould, Gianfranco Poggi, and Peter Wagner for their comments on
earlier drafts of this paper. I am also indebted to the “Democracy in the age of globalisation”
research group, directed by Furio Cerutti (Universita’ di Firenze), for support and critical
feedback.
1 See Baumann 1998 p. 67.
1
distinction between the regulative and constitutive roles played by this dichotomy
in modern political thought, I will try to show that globalisation has placed both
the former (§.3) and the latter (§.4) in question.
1. Sovereignty and anarchy: two dichotomous concepts
As first pointed out by Thomas Kuhn, every theory operates within the
boundaries of a scientific paradigm whose assumptions may be not recognised
immediately, but which are adopted as an unquestioned research framework. These
presuppositions provide the conceptual coordinates of the problems that are
important for researchers, and at the same time they then orient towards a possible
set of solutions. Only during scientific revolutions are these assumptions
questioned - by encountering their intrinsic limits, scholars open the path for the
onset of a new scientific paradigm.2
This remark also seems to hold true for political theory. The conceptual
apparatus by which political thinkers tried to capture the reality they were
witnessing operated within specific assumptions, working through the centuries as
guidelines, as the boundaries within which thought was expected to move. In this
paper, I argue that one of these unquestioned presuppositions was the dichotomy of
sovereignty versus anarchy. Stemming from the early theorists of modern state,
this assumption operated in Western political thought by identifying the problems
which had to be faced as well as the main strategies for solving them. To support
this view, I will first show in what sense the pair sovereignty versus anarchy can be
considered as a dichotomy, moving on to analyse its relationship with modern
political thought.3
According to Norberto Bobbio, a dichotomy is a pair of concepts acting to
divide a universe into two jointly exhaustive and reciprocally exclusive spheres,
i.e. such that all the members of our universe belong to one of them and, at the
same time, those who belong to one cannot belong contemporarily to the other. A
dichotomy also has to be principal, in the sense that other conceptual couples can
converge in it. The two concepts may then either be defined one independently of
the other, or the first may be defined in a positive and the second in a negative

2 See Kuhn 1962.
3 Among those emphasising the importance of this dichotomy, see Ashley 1988a and 1988b.
Even if I share Ashley’s interest in the construction of knowledge, my analysis differs from his
postmodernist approach because I do not aim at putting forward an holistic critique of modernity
as such, but rather at analysing how some of its conceptual tools have worked through the
centuries. As a consequence, I do not share his method, aiming at showing that such a dichotomy
is the result of the “heroic practice” of the Western reasoning man and his “narrative of
domestication of politics” (Ashley 1988b, p.103). On the contrary, I hold that it is not a
prerogative of the modern Western rationality to think in terms of dichotomies.
2
way; in this case, the first is held to be the strong term, whilst the second, the
derivate, is called the weak term.4
Let us move to the pair sovereignty versus anarchy. These constitute a
dichotomy for they are able to divide the universe of politics into two jointly
exhaustive spheres - so that what does not belong to the domain of sovereignty is
commonly considered to belong to that of anarchy – and, at the same time, they are
mutually exclusive, because what is included in the first cannot be part of the
second. As we can see, sovereignty is the strong term, i.e. it is defined positively,
whilst anarchy is usually defined negatively as the lack of sovereignty. We may
also argue that both terms stem from the two faces of sovereignty, the internal and
the external: on the one hand, there is the internal domain of sovereign power
which does not recognise any superior power; on the other, we have the external
anarchical domain of equally sovereign powers facing each other.5
According to its classical formulation, by “sovereignty” we mean the existence
of a supreme power, which is defined territorially and has the exclusive right to
resort to force both internally, against private violence, and externally, against
other sovereign entities.6 From its very first formulations the concept of
sovereignty was strictly linked with that of the state, where this latter, following
Max Weber, may be defined as an institution characterised by the (tendentially)
successful claim of the monopoly of legitimate physical coercion over a specific
territory.7 Sovereignty, as the claim to superiorem non recognoscens power within
a specific territory, is indeed the political and juridical concept which supported the
modern state in its fight against the two universalistic coordinates of the Pope and
the Emperor. Whilst the medieval system was characterised by a set of overlapping
and interwoven authorities, the modern organization of power appears as a system
of homogeneous political entities which are territorially defined and aspire to the
exclusive exercise of power.8 This is an absolute novelty in history: before modern
times no power has ever presented itself as claiming exclusive sovereign power
within a clearly defined territory.9 However, political power need not be territorial

4 See Bobbio 1985, p.3.
5 Among recent contributions on the concept of sovereignty see Bartelson 1995, Biersteker 1996,
Ferrajoli 1997, Gilson 1984, Hinsley 1966, Hoffmann 1998, Klein 1974, Krasner 1999, Weber
1995.
6 See Bodin 1583.
7 See Weber 1919, p.55.
8 There is a huge literature on this topic. See for instance recent contributions by Matteucci
1993,Pierson 1996, Poggi 1990, Spruyt 1994. For a more philosophical approach see Morris
1998.
9 One could here object that modern federalism represents an alternative to this conception, since
the federal power cannot claim exclusiveness of power. However, in my view, modern federal
polities were still completely within the paradigm of sovereignty: if we look at sovereign power
from the point of view of participants, the power may appear as shared, balanced and divided,
but if we look at it from the outside, i.e. from the point of view of an external observer, it will
still reveal a certain unitary character, in the sense that it is always possible to identify an
3
and need not be territorially fixed. Furthermore, even where systems of rule are
territorial, and even where territoriality is relatively fixed, the prevailing concept of
territory need not entail mutual exclusion – the archetype of non-exclusive
territorial rule being medieval Europe with its patchwork of geographically
interwoven and overlapping rights of government.10
These two features of modern power - territoriality and exclusivity - create the
conditions for a dichotomous view of politics, presenting the two spheres of
sovereignty and anarchy as mutually exclusive. Once political power began to be
conceived of as corresponding to a territorially defined political space and as
recognising no superiors within it, i.e. as internally sovereign, then it appeared
unavoidable to conceive of the external relationships between these political
entities as the anarchic clash among equally sovereign powers. According to the
conceptual context, anarchy may be understood either in its etymological meaning
as a mere absence of government or - with a semantic slide - as a condition of
chaos. This semantic slide is in fact typical of modern political thought. By
presenting sovereignty as the only alternative not just to the absence of
government, but also to chaos, some modern political theorists have pushed the
concept of anarchy from its etymological meaning towards the idea of a condition
of disorder from which we must escape. That is to say, in their attempt to provide a
justification for sovereign power, they present sovereignty as the only alternative
to disorder and, thus, as the sine qua non condition of social order, i.e. as the
necessary – if not sufficient - condition of it.
The thought of Thomas Hobbes seems in this case to be paradigmatic: in his
attempt to provide a justification for political obligation, he presents a condition of
anarchy, both domestic and international, as necessarily implying chaos and
disorder. Witness to the English civil war, Hobbes devoted all his energy to
showing that sovereignty was the only alternative to anarchy, where this is the
defining feature of the category of the state of nature. Since, according to his
pessimistic anthropology, he conceived this latter as a condition of war, where
isolated individuals moved by antagonistic passions were continuously exposed to
the danger of violent death, sovereignty was presented as an alternative not only to
the absence of government – anarchy in its etymological meaning, but also to a
condition of chaos where homo homini lupus: only by associating with each other
and placing themselves in awe of a sovereign power through a social covenant
(respectively, pactum unionis and pactum subjectionis) can individuals escape the
state of nature.

ultimate authority, no matter in what way and at which level this latter is exercised. The very fact
that modern federalism has been unable to go beyond the dichotomy federation versus
confederation is, in my view, a clear a sign that it was still within the paradigm of sovereignty.
10 See Ruggie 1993, p.149.
4
Inaugurating a long tradition, Hobbes then applied this description of the state
of nature to international relations.11 After saying that although there had never
been any time wherein particular men were in a condition of war one against
another, he argued that this was what normally happened in relationships among
sovereign states.12 Because states were not subject to any common power, they all
enjoyed the same freedom to do everything that they judged to be in their own
interest as individuals enjoyed in the state of nature.
We may now ask why, if the state of international anarchy is analogous to the
state of nature, states are not induced, like individuals, to exit from such a
condition. Hobbes’ answer was clear: the sovereignty of individual states, which
determines a “posture of warre” in relations among them, was the same that
enabled them to maintain that condition of peace where social life could flourish
internally.13
According to Hobbes, then, sovereignty, which guaranteed peace within states,
necessarily led the condition of international anarchy. It was no chance that
Hobbes devoted only few pages of his main work, the Leviathan, to international
relations: his problem was civil, not international, anarchy. As we shall see, this is
a very common approach in modern political philosophy, however different the
single conceptions of anarchy may be. The sovereign state is more or less
implicitly assumed as the telos and perfect model of political life. Political
theorists seem to dedicate all their energy to the discussion of issues surrounding it,
whilst international relations seem to deserve only secondary attention, an
appendix chapter.
One may now object that Hobbes’ conception is not representative of the
contractualist tradition as a whole and even less so of modern political theory. I
will try to answer this problem in two steps. Concentrating on only those aspects
which are relevant, I will first analyse the relationship between Hobbes’ thought
and contractualism and, second, its relationship with modern political theory. This
will enable us to introduce a distinction between the regulative and constitutive
roles of the dichotomy sovereignty versus anarchy, which will be the starting point
of the second part of this paper.
As many scholars have noticed, Hobbes occupies a particular position within
modern contractualism. The conceptual syntax by which this tradition is defined
(state of nature, civil society and social contract) can have very different outcomes
according to the philosophical and anthropological context. However, we could
argue that lying behind the dichotomy between civil society versus state of nature,
which is defining to this tradition, there is always the dichotomy sovereignty
versus anarchy. Thus, however much conceptions of the state of nature may differ
(sometimes being considered as a war of everybody against everybody, sometimes

11 On the influence of the concept of state of nature over international relations theories see Beitz
1979.
12 See Hobbes 1651, I, 13.
13 See Hobbes 1651, I, 13, 5. For a detailed discussion of this point see Bull 1981.
5
as an imperfect social condition, and sometimes as the original phase of
humankind when man was free and happy) this remains a condition from which we
must exit in order to enter a civil society characterised by the existence of a
sovereign power. Be this the absolute sovereignty of Thomas Hobbes, the limited
type proposed by John Locke or, lastly, the popular sovereignty of Jean Jacques
Rousseau, the establishment of sovereignty is always justified by contraposition
with a state of nature that, however positively it is conceived, is still viewed as a
condition of anarchy. This is the reason why the dichotomy civil society/ state of
nature has such a normative potential: by opposing sovereignty to the
disadvantages of an anarchic state of nature - ranging from the uncertainty of law
enforcement (Locke) to the danger of violent death (Hobbes), it provides grounds
for political obligation, i.e. a justification for loyalty towards the sovereign power.
In modern contractualism, then, the dichotomy sovereignty versus anarchy
plays a rather crucial role. First, it points to the relevant problems, i.e. those which
deserve most attention - among these the anarchy problematique, that is to say, the
fact that anarchy started to be conceived of as a problem because it was viewed as
implying social disorder, and the related issue of the justification of sovereign
power. Second, it orients towards certain guidelines in order to outline specific
solutions – as is the case, for example, of the contraposition between state of
nature/civil society. I will call the former the constitutive role, because by
identifying the significant questions it contributes towards drawing the contours of
the discipline, whilst I call the latter the regulative role because it consists in
orienting towards a set of possible solutions.
Let us now move to modern political theory. Even if we admit that the
dichotomy sovereignty versus anarchy played the kind of role described above
within contractualism, it is difficult to see how this could hold true for modern
political theory as a whole. A first remark concerns the importance of this tradition
of thought. It occupies a crucial place within modernity, not so much because of
the language through which it is expressed - inherited from previous traditions - as
because of the central place it accords to proper modern issues. From this point of
view, we can argue that with respect to the set of theories usually indicated as
“modern political theory”, the dichotomy sovereignty versus anarchy plays a
constitutive role, i.e. it operates by pointing out which problems are relevant. Most
of the issues raised by modern political theorists are, for instance, related to some
extent with the issue of sovereignty - how to organise it, how to limit it, how to
make it accountable, and so on. However much particular points of view may
differ, sovereign statehood is always the necessary assumption, and if it is not the
solution to everything, it is at least the starting point.
The lesser attention devoted by Hobbes to international relations was not
unusual. As Martin Wight has pointed out, the real question must focus on why
there is no tradition of international theory, certainly none as conspicuous as that of
political theory. In my view, if political philosophy seems to have rejected taking
international relations as the subject of its analysis, this is because it devotes all of
6
its energies to the sovereign state: this latter appeared for centuries to be the
culminating and exhaustive point of political life, beyond which there only remain
mere “relations”. This is also the reason why, according to Wight, political theory
is usually held to be a theory of “good life”, whilst International Relations is
considered as a theory of survival: what is the extreme case (revolution or civil
war) within state borders, is between states the rule. In other words, the
international is the domain of repetition where no progress is possible, so that the
appropriate point of view is not that of political theory, but that of mere historical
interpretation.14
Therefore we can conclude that the dichotomy sovereignty versus anarchy is
also principal, in the sense proposed by Bobbio, i.e. it works by recalling other
dichotomies such as those we have just seen: internal versus external, progress
versus repetition, political theory versus international relations.15 The first of these,
which refers to the two faces of sovereignty, is the spatial presupposition of the
dichotomy sovereignty /anarchy, whilst the second represents its temporal
corollary: inside the sovereign space we can speak of justice, democracy, human
rights and progress, while outside there can be only the repetition of the clash
between sovereign powers. The third and final dichotomy points instead to the
disciplinary boundaries between political theory and international relations.
2. Globalisation and the modern configuration of power
Having shown in what sense the two terms sovereignty and anarchy may be
said to constitute a dichotomy, and having reconstructed the relation between this
latter and modern political theory, I will turn now to the issue of globalisation. I
will first briefly delineate my approach to globalisation and to the problem of its
relationship with political modernity. Thereby, I will also start arguing that it is not
politics as such that is questioned by globalisation, but - rather – politics in its
specifically modern version.
One of the features of the contemporary globalisation discourse16 is the idea that
the mobility of capitals and the trend toward the unification of the labour market
are progressively reducing politics to the role of ancilla oeconomiae. Whereas
some celebrate this new condition as the victory of the market over politics, others,
deprecating it, try to negate its existence by talking of a “myth of globalisation”.
Analysing the way in which this myth has spread the neoliberist dogma of the
“absence of alternatives”, Pierre Bourdieu tends, for instance to minimise the trend

14 See Wight 1966. One of the main exceptions to this observation is the thinking of Immanuel
Kant, who takes relations among states as his primary object of analysis. All the same, we can
argue that his fluctuation from the proposal of a Weltrepublik to that of a Völberbund is due to
his incapacity to rid himself from the model of the sovereign state.
15 See Walker 1993.
16 By “discorse” I mean a series of linguistic and social practices.
7
toward a single labour market.17 According to Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson,
instead, what we are witnessing is no novelty, but rather an intensification of the
internationalisation of economy which started during the belle époque: in their
view, not only the globalisation of production – and therefore the role of truly
transnational enterprises – but also the globalisation of financial markets –
according to many, the hard core of the whole process - is overestimated, for this
has been perceptible for more than a century.18
All these approaches share the tendency to look at globalisation in its purely
economical aspect – a trend which, paradoxically, unites neoliberists as well as
their adversaries. In my view, however, it is not by disputing the existence of the
globalisation of economics, or its novelty, that the neoliberist dogma “there are no
alternatives” can be questioned. A much more efficient strategy consists in
pointing out that economic globalisation is only one side of a process which
encompasses all spheres of human life: in this perspective, the “mythical”
assumption in the globalisation discourse is in fact the idea of a separation between
politics and economics, together with the image of the market as a self-propelling
mechanism which can emerge only when politics is left to one side. On the
contrary, as Stubbs and Underhill, following Polanyi, argue, a market is a political
device to achieve certain outcomes, conferring relatives benefits on some and costs
on others in both political and economic terms.19 Therefore, I will look at
globalisation in a multidimensional perspective, because it is only in this way that
the interplay between economy and the complex institutional framework in which
it takes place can emerge.
Globalisation, in its numerous aspects – economic, financial, environmental,
technological, political and cultural, has created such a situation that events,
decisions and activities in one part of the world can have significant consequences
for individuals and communities in other quite distant parts of the globe. It has,
therefore, been conceived of as a set of processes which shift the spatial form of
human organisation and activity to transcontinental and inter-regional patterns of
activity, interactions and exercise of power.20 It involves a stretching and
deepening of social relations and institutions across space and time such that, on
the one hand, day-to-day activities are increasingly influenced by events happening
on the other side of the globe and, on the other, the practices and decisions of local
groups or communities can have significant global reverberations.
The stretching of the social chains of interdependence, which - from Rousseau
to Elias – had been identified as the sign of the civilising process, has gone well
beyond the West, their birthplace, and tends now to become global in its scope.

17 See Bourdieu 1998
18 See Hirst and Thompson 1997.
19 See Stubbs, Underhill 1994, pg.19. The same line of reasoning is pursued by Hardt and Negri
who, by developing their concept of empire, point out that there cannot be any economic system
which is not supported by a juridical and political order (Hardt, Negri 2000, pg 9-10)
20 See Mcgrew 1992 or Held, Mcgrew, Goldblatt, Perraton 1999.
8